In the Sac Bee, this evening was an article indicating more fevered Democrats think that humans can control the climate by adjusting the amount of trace gas in our atmosphere.

According to a poll from the Public Policy Institute of California released Monday, a plurality of Republican likely voters — 35 percent — say the effects of global warming “will never happen,” while another 20 percent say the effects won’t happen in their lifetime but will affect future generations. Thirty-one percent of Republicans believe the effects are already being felt.

If the world is warming why are max temperatures declining, details HERE?

Note the tiny red line on the right side of the Greenland ICE Core graphic below. The red line is the current warming in a global cooling cycle. Look at the magnitude of the other changes throughout history, do you think humans are responsible for the red line warming? If, so please make your case in the comments.

Supposedly because, as Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute, and one Pope Francis’s chief advisors on his 2015 environmental encyclical, put it, “The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can’t be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020.”

Ah. Yes. “The climate math.”

Is that kind of like the old “new math” that drove parents crazy back in the sixties and seventies? Or the “Common Core” math that prizes creativity more than getting the answers right? (Warning: Don’t fly on a jet engineered that way.)

“Climate math.” What a fascinating concept!

According to the average results of computer climate models, we should have seen about 0.27˚ C of global warming per decade since the late 1970s.

Don’t get me wrong. There has been warming. But the models simulate about twice what we’ve observed.

And they simulate that as coming entirely from CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere. But the world has warmed similarly many times in the past. That makes it pretty likely that at least some of the warming we’ve seen came from natural causes, not our CO2 emissions.

(Take a look at that first graph again. The closest to right is a Russian model. Collusion, anyone?)

And if the models are wrong, they provide no rational basis for predicting future temperature. Hence no rational basis for any policy.

But don’t sweat the small stuff. “Climate math,” you know? That solves everything.

So don’t even bother to ask about the math for global temperature if the countries signed onto the 2015 Paris climate treaty meet their targets for CO2 emission reductions—and what it’ll cost.

But let’s ask anyway.

Temperature? It’ll be at most 0.17˚ C cooler in 2100 than otherwise—statistically barely detectable, and utterly inconsequential to ecosystems and human welfare. (By the way, that number’s generously calculated from the Paris treaty’s own assumptions.)

Cost? A mere $70 to $140 Trillion. And that’s just from 2030 onward—doesn’t count 2016–2030. (Again, based on the treaty’s own assumptions.)

That figures to $23.3 to $46.6 Trillion per tenth of a degree Fahrenheit. But don’t worry. “Climate math” makes that a deal you can’t pass up!

And what do the climate warriors insist we commit to, within 18 months, to achieve this magnificent result?

Simple. By 2050, cut annual global CO2 emissions by 90 percent of what they were in 1990.

But there’s a catch. CO2 emissions are forecast to rise to nearly 50 Billion metric tons by 2050, compared with about 20 Billion in 1990. Hitting the target means reducing the 2050 emissions by 96 percent.

And there’s another catch. Most CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels provide over 80 percent of all the world’s energy—and they’ll continue to do so well past 2050.

Meanwhile, energy and economic production march together almost lockstep. More energy means more production. And that means less poverty and less of the troubles it brings, like disease and early death and—ironically—a dirtier environment.

So massive cuts in CO2 emissions will mean massive cuts in energy and thus massive cuts in poverty reduction—i.e., massive increases in poverty.

And poverty’s a greater threat to human welfare than anything related to climate or weather.

But, hey, what’s to worry about? President Trump is pulling the United States out of the Paris treaty. So we’re okay.

Except for AOC’s “Green New Deal.” And such a deal it is!

Economist Benjamin Zycher did the math—the real math, not “climate math”—on the GND’s costs. He shared the results at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, in Washington, July 25. Take a deep breath.

Just to meet the GND’s renewable electricity mandate would cost, at a very conservative estimate, $491 Billion a year—or $3,845 per household.

And then there are the indirect costs. What are those? The costs of building the political coalition necessary to turn the GND (which AOC introduced as a resolution) into law:

$4.5 Trillion for the marginal excess burden of the expanded tax system. (It costs a lot to collect all those taxes!)

That totals $9 Trillion a year. A paltry sum. Just slightly over two-fifths of our economy.

So the real math tells us the 18-month deadline, and the 12-year deadline, and all the other deadlines are fantasies.

What’s the real reason why Schellnhuber, Prince Charles, AOC, and others insist we have only a short time to get serious about fighting climate change?

Simple. Don’t by any means give people time to think carefully about what you’re demanding they do—time to do the math to carefully assess your case for rapid CO2-driven warming, your case for catastrophic results from it, your case for being able to prevent catastrophe by your policy, your case that the benefits of your policy will outweigh the harms.

Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilization for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

• the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.

• each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.

• for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.

• but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.

• the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.

• the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Alarm”.

• eventually, this late 20th-century temperature blip will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer-term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.

• other published Greenland Ice Core records as well as GISP2, (NGRIP1, GRIP) corroborate this finding. They also exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent (3000 years) past.

When considering the scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions in this century, it is useful to look at climate change from a longer-term, century by century and even on a millennial perspective.

The much-vaunted and much-feared “fatal” tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures close to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.

A pair of new international studies which punched holes in the absoluteness of man-made climate change have gotten little-to-no attention in the corporate media.

Researchers from Kobe University in Japan found that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an “umbrella effect.”

A second study, a paper published by researchers from the University of Turku in Finland, concluded that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant. Such findings create cognitive dissonance for celebrity and media actors committed to the narrative that human behavior is killing the planet.

“We have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice,” the study concluded.

Professor Masayuki Hyodo, who led the research team at Kobe University, said: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it.”

Professor Hyodo continued: “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”

An extraordinary weather event has been occurring above our heads during the past 24-hour. A record that was not only broken, but shattered to little pieces.

The jet stream is a narrow current of strong winds in the upper troposphere (roughly 25,000 ft to 35,000 ft above sea level). It is often the conduit for storms and is associated with a large temperature gradient (change in temperature with horizontal distance) in the middle and lower troposphere. Winds in the jet stream are westerly (from the west) and aircraft like to fly in the jet stream going east, while avoiding it going west. You are now Jet Steam certified!

The ECMWF 12-h forecast for 5 AM this morning for the wind speed at the 250 hPa pressure level (about 35,000 ft) clearly shows the jet stream, with the orange/red colors being the strongest winds.

This is a HUGE and very zonal (east-west oriented) jet stream…as shown by the next map at the same time. This looks like January, not July.

But now I will really impress you.

The wind this morning at the radiosonde site at Quillayute (UIL) was 140 knots (161 mph) at the 250 hPa level (again around 35,000 ft). This is amazingly fast for this time of the year.

The plot below shows the climatology of the winds at this level throughout the year at this location, with the red lines being the all-time record for each date (the black lines are average winds for the date, blue lines, the record low winds). Vertical soundings at Quillayute go back to the late 1960s…so we are talking about a half-century of observations. The previous record was around 110 knots…so the 140 knots observed today absolutely shattered the record. In fact, the wind over us right now is greater then the records for any date from April 1 to mid-October.

Record, but lesser winds, are being observed at the next upper air station to the south: Salem, Oregon (see below)

A truly unusual event. And one that should not be pinned on global warming. In fact, several of the global warming jet stream papers (e.g., by Jennifer Francis and others) suggest that global warming will bring a weak and wavy jet stream. This is just the opposite.

===========================

Reading climate history during Grand Minimums, the was a plethora of unusual climate activity. This could just another example.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, who is the former Virginia State Climatologist has some strong comments about climate models during an interview with Mark Levin:

There are 32 different computer models used to predict the climate, all of them run by government entities. And all of those models, except for the Russian model, are predicting far, far too much warming. The Russian model pretty much matches reality.

I will be in Chemo Therapy for the next four months, with a session every two weeks, starting on June 18, 2019.Posting will depend on how I respond to the chemo drugs.Please be patient if you have posted comment needing moderation.Thank You!